Additionality of EU framework programmes

Luukkonen, Terttu

doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00041-4

Cited by 136 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…24 23 Our results are also consistent with the conclusions of evaluations studies on EUREKA and FPST impact (see Peterson and Sharp, 1998, chapter 9) which report that firms involved in EU-REKA generally expressed a high level of satisfaction with the program, while firms involved in FPST projects showed less contentment. 24 On this issue see also Luukkonen (2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Joint Ventures and Firm Level Performance

Benfratello

Sembenelli

2000

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Joint Ventures and Firm Level Performance

Benfratello

Sembenelli

2000

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Most of the research on the effectiveness of public intervention is based on the concept of additionality (Luukkonen 2000), that is, measuring the extent to which public intervention gives rise to a new activity or outcome that would not otherwise have come into being. Most of this work adopts one of three analytic approaches: the influence of policies on R&D input levels (Branstetter and Sakakibara 1998;Almus and Czarnitzki 2003;García-Quevedo 2004), the influence on innovation behaviour (Huggins 2001;Polt and Streicher 2005;OECD 2006) and the influence on the outcome of the innovation process (Branstetter and Sakkibara 1998;Klette and Moen 1999;Huggins 2001;Benfratello and Sembenelli 2002;Bayona-Sáez and García-Marco 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public R&D funding: does the source determine the strategy?

Sáez

Cruz‐Cázares

García‐Marco

2013

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The aim of this study is to analyze whether the receipt of public funding for innovation determines for present and future a firm's choice of R&D strategy. We consider three R&D strategies: make R&D in-house, buy R&D and, combined make-buy R&D. The analysis uses a sample of 457 large firms for the period 1992-2005, taken from the Spanish Survey of Business Strategies. Estimation of a multinomial logit model with random effects shows that the positive effect of public funding varies according to the source of the aid, so, while State and Regional funds have a long term effect, other financial aid (such as EU grants) has only short-term effect.The second relevant finding is that the source of the aid also influences whether the firm selects the make, buy or make-buy strategies.

show abstract

“…Many of this type of studies indicate that public subsidies do not have a significant effect on the implementation of a project, which strongly suggests occurrence of deadweight (see eg Luukkonen, 2000). These studies show that larger firms, firms with higher activity in R&D, and firms with more expensive projects are more likely to carry on the same level of activities even in the absence of support (eg Heijs, 2003).…”

Section: Literature On Deadweightmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Project Deadweight Measures: Evidence from Finnish Business Subsidies

Tokila

Haapanen

2009

Environ Plann C Gov Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important problem in measuring the impacts of business subsidies is their separation from deadweight, which refers to changes that would have occurred even in the absence of intervention. Both public and private assessments have been used previously to study deadweight, but so far little is known about how they correspond to each other. To address this issue we conducted a joint evaluation of the private and public assessments of deadweight for Finnish business projects. A unique dataset combines large register data with both public and private information on projects financed in 2000^03. First, our results suggest that the different measures for deadweight are greatly uncorrelated, and thus cannot be used as substitutes. Second, characteristics affecting the public and private measures of deadweight are identified using ordered probit models. We find that the public and private sectors emphasize different factors in their assessment of deadweight. Third, an upper bound for the level of deadweight spending is estimated at 73.8%.

show abstract

Additionality of EU framework programmes

Cited by 136 publications

References 12 publications

Research Joint Ventures and Firm Level Performance

Research Joint Ventures and Firm Level Performance

Public R&D funding: does the source determine the strategy?

Evaluating Project Deadweight Measures: Evidence from Finnish Business Subsidies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About